Arizona voters will decide whether to put more curbs on the governor’s emergency powers.
Proposition 135 would not restrict the ability of any governor to declare an emergency. But it would spell out that any emergency powers a governor assumes would self-destruct in 30 days unless both the state House and Senate gave approval.
It also would allow lawmakers, even before the 30 days, to vote to end the emergency. That is reinforced by a provision that would require the governor, if the Legislature is not in session, to call legislators in if there is a petition with the signatures of at least one-third of the members of each chamber.
The failure of lawmakers to approve an extension would mean the emergency declaration goes away. The proposal would then bar the governor from proclaiming a new state of emergency for the same conditions.
The powers existing law gives the governor are quite extensive.
The governor is allowed to suspend any laws about the conduct of state business and any rules or regulations.
More sweeping is the power to “commandeer and use any property ... or personnel deemed necessary in carrying out the responsibilities vested in the office.’’ The only exceptions are for firearms and ammunition.
There’s also the power to suspend or revoke any license held by a business.
Arizonans got a taste during the emergency declared in 2020 by Republican then-Gov. Doug Ducey during the COVID pandemic.
It included a stay-at-home order. While that was allowed to expire, others continued longer.
Then-Gov. Doug Ducey at a news conference in late April 2020 when he extended his pandemic stay-at-home order. Many GOP lawmakers want to limit governors' powers to declare ongoing emergencies.
There was an order that shut down bars, gyms, theaters, water parks and more. Ducey also limited restaurants to 50% capacity for dine-in service.
He said all that was necessary due to a spike in COVID cases that stretched the resources of doctors and the availability of protective equipment.
He also halted all elective surgeries and activated the National Guard to restock grocery store shelves.
And while Ducey declined to mandate the use of face masks, he gave the authority to do that to city, town and county officials.
As a result, GOP lawmakers attempted in late 2020 to rein in the governor. Led by then-Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, it would have allowed the Legislature to declare the emergency at end.
It got no traction.
A bill was enacted in 2022. Also crafted by Ugenti-Rita, it limits public health emergencies to 30 days, allowing for up to three automatic extensions.
At 120 days, the emergency self-destructs absent House and Senate approval. And those renewals are good for only 30 days.
Of note is that Ducey agreed to sign it under the condition that it would not take effect until 2023 — after he left office. That is the law that now governs the actions of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Scottsdale Republican Rep. Joseph Chaplik doesn’t think that’s enough.
He said there are gaps, starting with the fact that the limits in the existing law apply only to public health emergencies. Proposition 135 covers everything except a state of war or any emergency arising from a fire or flood.
Chaplik also said the limit of an emergency to 30 days without legislative approval is more appropriate than the existing law that allows one to continue for up to 150 days.
Potentially most significant is the proposed requirement for the governor to call lawmakers back as soon as a third of senators and representatives demand it. Now it takes two thirds, something difficult in a divided Legislature.
“Under Prop. 135, the Legislature could call a special session on Day One if a governor abuses their emergency power,’’ Chaplik said.
It would give lawmakers a range of options, he noted.
They could pull the plug entirely on the emergency, or set specific limits on the scope of the emergency.
That issue came up last time as lawmakers called for Ducey to cancel the COVID emergency. The governor refused, arguing that, if nothing else, the state of emergency was necessary to continue receiving federal COVID funds.
Under Proposition 135, Chaplik said, lawmakers could extend the emergency, but with guardrails. They could say, for example, it is only for the purpose of accepting certain federal dollars, and only for spending those dollars for specific reasons, he said.
A big change is that Proposition 135 would amend the Arizona Constitution, something that could be altered only on a future public vote. The current restrictions are statutory and could be changed by a future Legislature, either with permission of the governor or, with a two-thirds vote, over the governor’s objections in an override.
“Prop. 135 answers fundamental questions about the function of government and separation of powers which belongs in the constitution, not in statute,’’ Chaplik said.
Not everyone is as enthusiastic about the proposal as Chaplik.
“Voting for this would add bureaucratic red tape and delay Arizona’s emergency response,’’ said Will Humble, a former state health director who is now the executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association.
Humble has a particular problem with the 30-day limit on emergencies.
“The purpose of any state emergency declaration is to allow state agencies to implement reasonable measures to help quickly respond to disasters,’’ he said. “When people and communities are in a state of emergency, the last thing they need to do is wait for the Legislature to come to a consensus.’’
Pinny Sheoran, president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, said provisions that allow lawmakers to “dilute the governor’s emergency powers ... would undermine the governor’s ability to effectively manage ongoing crisis situations.’’
But Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, called Prop. 135 “an appropriate balance’’ of the need for quick action and legislative oversight.
“This ensures an on-going emergency and the great power being put into the hands of one politician is affirmed by more than just that person,’’ Mussi said. “If these powers are abused or the nature of the emergency changes, the Legislature may also limit or alter the powers being granted.’’
